Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) and (Levy Account Basis of Distribution) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am not sure whether I declared my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I feel I should do so and remind the House of it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I, too, forgot to remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for explaining this order and I want to record that I agree with it. It is entirely appropriate that any disability-related expenses in elections should be exempt from spending limits, on principle. That is because it helps disabled candidates to stand for election on equal terms with others. I noted the Minister’s comments about some objections that may have been raised on some of the details—but none is more important than the overall principle of equality of opportunity.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am very happy to give the order my full support. I was glad that the noble Lord mentioned the political parties panel, because I was going to ask him about it. There is no mention of political parties at all in the consultation referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that the noble Lord mentioned it in his contribution, because I was going to ask him about it. The bodies listed in the Explanatory Memorandum do not pay election expenses and do not fill out election returns. I am glad that he covered that point. It is important that we keep the political parties informed on all these matters. They can often inform the Government’s thinking in a positive and helpful way. Since the noble Lord answered my question, that is fine. I am very happy to support the order.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that the Bill would improve the lives of millions of tenants, and he is absolutely right. It is a much better Bill as a consequence of the close cross-party co-operation it has undergone in your Lordships’ House.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to give a great deal of time, meeting regularly with us to identify outstanding issues. From these Benches, I thank my noble friend Lady Grender, whose assiduous campaign over a substantial period has led to fruition in this Bill, which is indeed a significant milestone in the support of tenants’ rights. I also thank Sarah Pughe, in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, for her help. I also extend my thanks to the Bill team and all the officials who gave us a great deal of time in recent weeks while the detail of the changes that were being made in your Lordships’ House was finalised.

We lowered the level of the deposit cap to five weeks’ rent, listed default fees on the face of the Bill, introduced greater transparency around holding deposits, removed local authorities—I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association—and those acting on behalf of local authorities from the definition of a “relevant person”, and we addressed deficiencies in the client money protection scheme, among a number of other changes. Some of those changes are very important, and enable the Minister to say that the Bill will indeed help financially a large number of tenants.

I thank the Minister for his co-operation throughout this process. The last few weeks have been very productive, making sure that the Bill will stand the test of its application.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the Bill before us leaves this House in a much better state than when it arrived. It has had a positive consideration across the House, and I thank every Member who has contributed to our debates and discussions, bringing their expertise and ideas. We have made a real difference and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, outlined, some improvements to the Bill, so we have made progress. We have certainly made a positive contribution to the rights of tenants in the private sector, and it is important that we do that. I also thank the Bill team from the department, who have been courteous, helpful and informative, and have engaged with me and my noble friend Lord Beecham at any time. I am very grateful to them for that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for whom I have great respect. We spend a lot of time on these Benches batting things back and forwards, and I have always found him courteous, friendly and engaging, and always willing to talk to me both inside and outside the Chamber. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beecham for his support and hard work, and I thank Rhian Jones from the opposition office. She has supported me with research and draft amendments and has helped me to understand the Bill—she understands it much better than I ever would—sending me out to battle with the right papers at the right time, fully briefed, so that I can raise things here. I am very grateful for all the work she does for us in our office, and I thank her very much for that. I am delighted that the Bill is where it is today, in a much better place.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, since we have begun Report I should declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I simply say that these are helpful and relevant amendments that have our support.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken on Report, I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, did. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and his officials for a number of the amendments we will discuss, in this group and others. Generally they are very helpful and improve the Bill. That is good news for tenants, and I am genuinely very grateful for that. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Bill, but I am pleased to say we are making progress. I am very happy to support these amendments and I concur with the noble Lord’s comments.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18. I remind your Lordships that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to say at the outset that, like the Government, our aim is to make renting a home fairer and more affordable. I repeat our support for the Bill in its aim of reducing up-front costs for those seeking to rent a home. We should also remember that the Bill is about protecting tenants from bad landlords, but also about protecting good landlords from bad tenants. Our job in Committee is to assess, line by line, whether the Bill will achieve those objectives and whether it can be improved. The amendments in my name and those of colleagues seek to do that.

Amendment 18 is about whether the figure of seven days for a holding deposit is justified. There is a tendency to draft Bills with round numbers based on weeks, but such a decision requires clear justification that the amount to be paid by a tenant, and received by a landlord, be counted in weeks rather than days. There is a strong case for saying that the costs to the landlord are what should be reimbursed. There is evidence to suggest that such costs would be recouped with a three-day rent payment. I have received advice—as, I guess, other noble Lords have—from Citizens Advice, which supports the three-day period. Its justification is that 14% of tenants are currently charged a returnable holding deposit, at an average cost of £250. Some tenants, however, are paying much more than that. A cap of three days’ rent would help to prevent that.

We also need to recognise that a tenant’s circumstances or budget can change unexpectedly, and they might need to withdraw from renting a property that they originally and genuinely intended to take. This could be for reasons that prove beyond a tenant’s control. For example, there may be an unexpected failure of a credit or reference check. This can cause severe financial hardship for tenants and prevent them being able to access the private rented sector at all. Smaller holding deposits would still have the effect of deterring tenants from taking a large number of properties off the market, while avoiding hitting tenants’ finances unnecessarily. I am grateful to Citizens Advice for its briefing, from which I have quoted.

The question for the Minister is: can the Government explain why the figure of one week appears in the Bill, as opposed to a set number of days? As I said, it is very easy to talk in round numbers, but for some tenants trying to take up a tenancy, how much they will have to pay in cash is very relevant. I very much hope that, as we consider the Bill in Committee, the Minister might be able to explain the basis for one week, as opposed to three days.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to today’s proceedings, I draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for the letter and the draft guidance, which we received on Friday afternoon. I very much appreciated that: it was good to get the papers and look at them over the weekend.

Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I have added our names, raises an important issue for prospective tenants. It seeks to include in the Bill more certainty, and to provide greater fairness and transparency for the person or persons looking for accommodation. They would be provided with more information about how their money is to be treated. I am not against the use of holding deposits in principle, but I want to see real clarity in their operation, and the amendments in this group are a positive step forward.

I am sure the Grand Committee will be repeatedly told today that guidance is sufficient and we do not need to go down the route of regulation. But I am also clear that this is guidance; it is not statutory and, as such, has no legal effect—it is just guidance. Amendment 1 rightly places a requirement on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the procedure to be followed by a landlord or letting agent when they take a holding deposit, and how the deposit is to be treated in a prescribed way so that it is clear what the prospective tenants should be told. The amendment would also ensure that there is a clear procedure to be followed where it is decided to withhold a deposit, and that evidence must be provided to the person who paid the deposit, setting out the ground on which it is being withheld. The regulations are to be approved using the negative procedure, which is the minimum of burdens for the Government and is the right way forward in this case.

Amendment 17, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, and Amendment 22 in my name, seek to stop the practice of taking multiple deposits from people. I accept that this is referenced in the guidance, and that, as it says, a holding deposit creates a binding conditional contract between tenants and landlord. But if, as a landlord or letting agent, you accept multiple deposits, surely you must be in breach of this binding conditional contract. It can be said in those circumstances that there is no conditional contract whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to enable a deposit to be transferred to another landlord or letting agent. This deposit passporting would be of great benefit to tenants and, as far as I can see, would have no detrimental effect on landlords or letting agents. The system would allow for the direct transfer of money between landlords and properties. The consumer group Which? found that 43% of renters have had to use a credit card, loan or overdraft, or borrow from family and friends to fund a deposit—that is terrible. It also found that 31% of renters had to find money for a new deposit before they had been paid back their existing deposit. In effect, this group of renters would, even if only for a short time, have paid two deposits, which is potentially a huge sum of money. That is just not fair, and the Bill does not address this at all. Renting in the private rented sector is stacked against tenants in many respects and this proposal would help tenants with the difficult issue of finding deposits.

I saw an article in the Daily Telegraph—not my usual reading, I must say—which included figures from the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. The article found that the average deposit is £1,180, as much as £3,266 in parts of central London, and around £498 in Lancashire’s Ribble Valley. These are not insignificant sums of money. The system is failing tenants and it could be improved.

Amendments 15 and 16, also in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seek to put into effect what the Government originally announced: that there would be a four-week tenancy deposit cap. In this case, I stand with the Prime Minister and what she announced last year. It is appalling that the Government have had a change of heart here, and it would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, could explain what has happened over the past year and why there has been a change of heart. The evidence shows that opting for this large deposit cap makes it harder for people to rent in the private rented sector, and makes it harder for them to raise money for a deposit, especially when there is no ability to passport deposits.

I am sure we will be told that there is a risk that renters will use their deposit to cover their last month’s rent without the consent or knowledge of the landlord. Citizens Advice—an organisation that we all respect—has done research that found that this happened without prior agreement with the landlord in only 2% of cases. Therefore, in 98% of cases, it did not happen. I am sure we will also be told that this higher figure of a six-week cap is needed to recover landlords’ costs, but again this just does not hold water.

The Deposit Protection Scheme did some analysis and found that over 50% of tenants get their full deposit back and the average deposit return is 75%. That illustrates that the Government were right to set the level at four weeks in the first place, and it is disappointing that they have changed their mind. The majority of renters getting most or all of their deposit back shows me that the four-week limit is the right level, which would still allow for a much higher than average deduction to cover landlords’ legitimate costs while protecting renters from excessive up-front costs. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 15 and 16 in this group. Amendment 2 is a very reasonable suggestion and I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.

In the previous group I raised how lengths of time are decided. I understand that they are often a judgment. The same issues around the length of time arise in this group. We need to protect both parties—landlord and tenant—and the question is whether six weeks’ rent is a reasonable sum to pay as a refundable deposit or whether some other length of time is more justifiable. There are two issues here. First, in Scotland, it is two months. Scotland has that figure for a reason. Have the Government looked at Scotland’s experience? Secondly, it was announced in the 2017 Queen’s Speech that in England it would be four weeks; that is, half the length of time that applies in Scotland. Differences of this kind for those on low incomes or who are short of savings can matter profoundly.

The Government have now decided that it should be six weeks. It is almost as if this is about splitting the difference between what they said it was going to be—four weeks—and the Scottish experience, which is eight weeks. It needs more rigour than that, should that be the case. Again, I refer to advice from Citizens Advice, which I think is material. The most common amount tenants pay for a refundable deposit is four weeks or one month. Setting the cap higher than four weeks might push up the cost to tenants. To put it another way, setting the cap at six weeks will help only 8% of tenants, according to Citizens Advice. However, a cap of four weeks would save money for almost half of tenants. I do not know what consideration the Government have given to that but I make the point that when it comes to the decision on whether it is four, six or eight weeks—or perhaps five weeks, which was mooted in the House of Commons—we need to be very much clearer about why six weeks has been decided on.

Citizens Advice’s research shows that only 2% of renters use their security deposit to cover their last month’s rent without the landlord’s knowledge or consent. Has the Minister considered the advice from Citizens Advice? If it is only 2% of renters, there is an issue for us to discover. Of course, the point is—and in defence of landlords’ interests—if tenants withhold the last month’s rent, that can lead to a landlord having no protection against the damage done by a tenant who is leaving if they fail to pay the last month’s rent as well. That would be a concern for me. That is one of the reasons why the House of Commons suggested that it should be five weeks, not six.

What I look for in this probing amendment is the evidence base the Government considered on how many weeks would be justifiable. They clearly changed their mind from the Queen’s Speech in 2017 when they announced that it would be four weeks. They have now come out with a figure of six weeks. I would like to understand better the Government’s reasoning for that figure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions on points I raised earlier. The first is that it is not clear why the Government used the figure of four weeks in the Queen’s Speech last year and what has caused them to change their own decision. Secondly, can the Minister explain the consideration that has been given to the scrutiny by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee? Bob Blackman MP drew attention to the committee’s recommendation that the length of deposits should be set at five weeks to avoid the risk that a tenant may refuse to pay the last month’s rent if the limit was set at four weeks. That would avoid some of the financial hardship for tenants that could result from the six-week limit. Have the Government considered in full the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken in the other place in coming to their decision that it should remain at six weeks despite the clear advice that it should be five weeks?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On a similar point, we understand that in the Queen’s Speech the Government mentioned a period of four weeks. At one time it seems to have been a manifesto commitment. I am sure that we will be told that it was not, but I would be interested to find out. I understand that the period of four weeks was announced in the Queen’s Speech, but what has happened? The Bill says six weeks. It would help to know the Government’s thinking on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 3 seeks to shine some light on the whole process for the benefit of landlords, letting agents and tenants. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the new procedures coming into force are properly communicated to everybody concerned. I am sure that we would all agree that proper communication is vital to make legislation effective and ensure that it works. It is imperative that the introduction of the ban is clearly communicated to ensure that landlords and letting agents, as well as tenants, are fully aware of the changes and that this happens immediately. We would put a requirement on the Secretary of State to advise representative bodies, affected groups, local authorities and other bodies that the Secretary of State decides are appropriate. That would include bodies such as Citizens Advice that provide advice services to people.

In the private rented sector, it can be difficult to reach the people who rent, because of the often transient nature of the sector—people probably move around more than in other sectors. There will be groups of tenants who need support. Some, of course, will be very savvy about their rights and responsibilities, but there are other groups of more vulnerable tenants. We must make sure that smaller agents and smaller landlords—some may have only one or two properties—are fully aware of the changes and how they will affect them. It is particularly important that tenants are made aware since they are the people who will alert local authorities to the identities of landlords or letting agents who are not observing the law, charging prohibitive payments or doing other things that would be banned by this legislation. To ensure compliance—I know the Government want to see compliance with their own legislation particularly—we need a clear communication strategy. The Bill will change the law and introduce new criminal offences, with relevant penalties and consequences, so it is important that people are fully aware of the changes. We do not believe it needs to be onerous, but we need something to ensure that it is properly communicated to everyone concerned. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I will briefly express my support for the amendment. It seems to be extremely helpful. Perhaps there could be a discussion about how it would be implemented. I say this because it is one thing for Parliament to pass legislation, but it is another for it to be actually understood in the wider world. For tenants and landlords to understand their rights and responsibilities, it is very important that the publicity is good. A lot of it can be standard wording. It does not have to be originated by every individual. It may need to be amended by individuals, but generally it can be the same. That leads me to remind the Minister of my view that the £500,000 allocated for enforcement—perhaps we will come to that in the next group—is a welcome sum, but probably not enough. Providing the necessary resource for this to work seems to be very important. Ultimately, this should be self-financing. Ensuring that there is the right level of publicity, particularly for tenants, is particularly important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 4 and 5 in my name are concerned with enforcement in respect of the costs involved and how they are covered, and require a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill’s provisions coming into force. The Bill is a bit light—to say the least—on these matters, which are extremely important.

Amendment 4 would require the Secretary of State to reimburse the lead authority for any additional costs incurred in taking on these extra duties. If a local authority is designated as the lead authority and, after taking account of the money received from fines or other work is still out of pocket, what local authority would want its council tax payers to subsidise everybody else? We need a clause that covers that situation.

Amendment 5 would put a new clause in the Bill that would require the Secretary of State to,

“make an assessment of the resources available to … enforcement authorities; and … the lead enforcement authority”.

Proposed new subsection (2) sets out what the report “must consider”. Finally, proposed new subsection (3) says:

“The Secretary of State must lay a report … before each House of Parliament”.


It is essential that the Government provide additional funding to local authorities for enforcing this legislation, otherwise they will be letting down the very people—the private sector tenants—they say they want to help.

Trading standards departments in local authorities will be responsible for enforcing the ban. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will be well aware of the evidence given to the Bill Committee considering this legislation in the other place. There have been cuts of over 50% to trading standards staff in some areas. Many areas are experiencing increasing levels of demand and legislation that they are expected to enforce. It is getting more and more difficult to do so. Indeed, trading standards departments are struggling to enforce existing regulations designed to protect renters. Analysis by Generation Rent found that, in 2017, 12% of letting agents did not list their fees on websites as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. They were clearly in breach of the legislation but they were still doing that.

It is important to keep in mind that local authorities have also gained additional responsibilities to enforce against rogue landlords and agents from the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016. While I obviously welcome the Government’s announcement of a fund of £500,000 for year one to cover the up-front costs of implementation and awareness raising, one-off seed funding is unlikely to cover the full costs and burdens placed on local authorities. That is not a new thing; we have discussed this many times in Grand Committee and in the Chamber.

The Government’s approach seems to be that any penalties will support enforcement functions. That would potentially penalise councils that have raised awareness of the ban with agents. They are less likely to benefit from collecting penalties than where people have not kept up with their obligations. That is no way to fund and deliver such an important piece of legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to this. Of the two amendments, Amendment 5 is more important because it would provide an evidence base without which it would be difficult to know whether the £500,000 that the Government are allocating will be sufficient. Amendment 4 would be difficult to implement. How does one understand or agree what a reasonable cost is? You then have to consider things such as overhead recoupment and so on. What is a reasonable sum of money for an enforcement authority to receive? I see a big problem in making a fair assessment of what the additional sums that cannot be recovered through fines or via the Secretary of State might be.

However, the broader issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has introduced seems important: is enough money being provided up-front to enable enforcement authorities to get enforcement properly established? We have read some evidence in the press recently that, despite legislation passed in Parliament, local authorities have not always been able to provide the level of enforcement that might be deemed necessary. I am talking in particular about rogue landlords.

I hope the Minister can respond to us on this. I repeat my observation that we need Amendment 5, and I hope the Government will be willing to come back with something on Report that gives some life to it. Amendment 4 might be the consequence of having evidence under Amendment 5. However, for the moment, I hope that the Government will be able to indicate how they respond to funding enforcement overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, very briefly, I spoke at Second Reading on the importance of exempting home-share schemes from the impact of the Bill. It seems to me that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, addresses the problem. I hope very much that the Minister is in a receptive mood.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am happy to have added my name to Amendment 12, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. As we have heard, these issues were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, at Second Reading.

In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness explained in detail that it would exempt people from being letting agents and being caught by the Bill’s provisions if they meet a number of conditions, as set out. She makes a very fair point. One thing we do not want to do, as is always a risk when passing legislation, is for it to have unintended consequences. This amendment seeks to stop that, so that the good work being done through this scheme—where no rent changes hands, and people give each other mutual support and contribute to utility bills—will not be caught by the legislation. I am happy to support the noble Baroness in finding a way forward to protect the scheme. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, I hope he will give a commitment to the Grand Committee that the Government understand this is an issue and will table their own amendment on Report.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I again remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome these orders. I am a firm believer in voluntary taxation, and the system used in this case with the business rate supplement is similar to that used for business improvement districts. In that respect, it is a procedure that can command public support: if the business rate payers involved do not want to pay the money they have the right to reject it in a ballot. There is therefore a democratic process, which is very helpful.

On average, around 90% of business rate payers under any of these four orders will not be paying any additional money. Around 10% in Cambridge and 14% in Peterborough will have to pay a bit more. The Minister kindly read out the total sums of money that could be raised with a 2p in the pound levy. Clearly, rateable values vary. Could the Minister, either now or in writing, tell us the highest amount that might have to be paid by a business rate payer in each of these four areas, given that the threshold is to be a £50,000 valuation but some clearly have a higher valuation than that? Of the £35 million in the West Midlands, say, what is the highest single amount that might have to be paid by a business rate payer?

Overall, I do not think that these orders relate to the overall structure of combined authorities. There have been debates about mayors’ powers and the fact that the scrutiny systems need to be made stronger in combined authorities. Of course, in London an assembly lies behind the mayoral structure, which does not exist for the combined authorities elsewhere in England. All that having been said, the specific process relating to a business rate supplement stands on its own. It seems appropriate and should be supported.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am generally happy to support the orders before the House, but there is a point to be made about business rates. I accept that this is a supplement and in that sense it could be subject to a referendum, a plan and stuff, but there is the point about business rates in general and what business has to pay in an area. We have many questions here about the cost to business of further taxation. In the West Midlands, for example, if a further £35 million is raised, what does that do to the economy? Is that the best use of that money?

That then comes back to the whole issue of combined authorities. Where they are established, the funding provided by government is relatively small. I am sure the noble Lord will not agree, but I have made the point before to his noble friend Lord Bourne that we have this rather confusing patchwork of local government emerging in England. We need a clear structure that we will get to. I am all in favour of devolution, but I would like to understand what the plan is. Certain places will potentially have four, five or maybe six authorities, whereas in another place there will be just one. That does not seem to be very good government at all. I am all in favour of devolution, but I am not convinced that the combined authority model is the best way forward.

I am happy to support the orders, as I said. I welcome the fact that the supplementary rates will have to be subject to a ballot. That is good news, but generally there is the whole issue of business rates and the effect on businesses, particularly on the high street.

New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor in getting us to this stage.

As the Minister said, these regulations relate to both the new town development corporation model and to the oversight of them being transferred from the Secretary of State to local government where local government requests it—and, rightly, any designation will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. As he also said, it is important that this process is locally led.

Our country has a proud history of the creation of new towns, mostly through the development corporation model. However, local government has a strong history of delivery—Northumberland County Council with Cramlington new town is an excellent example of local government leadership.

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor referred to changing the regulations so as not to have an imposed borrowing limit of £100 million. That is the right thing to do. However, it means that strong financial controls will need to be in place and, in that respect, it will be necessary for the boundaries of the local authority oversight powers and the new town development corporation’s powers to be clarified in some detail in guidance as to exactly where the dividing line between the two is.

I am also pleased that the membership will be made up of a majority of independent members, who will have to demonstrate the required expertise and skills to make a success of the development corporation. However, what steps might the Government introduce in guidance to make sure that the appointment of independent members is a full and open process in which it can be demonstrated why they have been appointed?

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor talked about the quality of development and the number of homes of quality that are required. He was absolutely right in what he has said. From my perspective, in order for this process to work, we need more highly professional planners who understand how to build communities rather than dormitory developments in the form of new housing estates. In my view, over recent years planning has become more about gatekeeping developers than strategic planning, so I hope that these regulations will be seen as a major opportunity to reverse that trend.

In conclusion, as the Minister said, this is about local ownership. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor said, this should not be controversial because it is a major and welcome step forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am happy to support the regulations before the House and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, on securing this change to the legislation when the Bill was going through the House. I am very happy that we will provide local authorities with the option of being able to lead on new town developments. That is a good thing and, as other noble Lords said, will allow a level of independence so that they can go forward. Given that, I am happy to support the regulations as they are.

I was pleased that the Government listened to the responses to the consultation on the financial limits; that is very good news. However, the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee talks about the length of the consultation. I have mentioned a number of times the question of consultations from the department. This appears to be truncated down to four weeks, whereas ideally it should be six weeks and perhaps even longer. There is also a general point to be made about the consultation itself, in that, whether it produces negative or positive responses, the level of those responses is actually very low. The Government should look at ways of trying to get more people to engage with what they are doing.

I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, about the construction of new towns and bringing the process up to date. Indeed, it is a good intention on the part of the Government to deliver on this. A number of noble Lords observed that new homes must be of sufficient quality, which is extremely important. They must be properly energy efficient, built using the best techniques and set within the right infrastructure. In that way we will have homes in new towns and elsewhere that will be there for many years. If we do not get this right, we will simply create housing problems for future generations. I am conscious that in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, while Governments of all persuasions built a lot of housing, in the end a good deal of it turned out to be of very poor quality. For all the promises, those houses failed the families who had to live in them. Of course, some of the properties are still here today. So it is important that, whatever is built, be it in new towns or elsewhere, quality should underpin it. Hopefully, having a local element in new towns, with local people being fully involved, will help with that. Again, I am happy to support the regulations.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, on which my name appears, and remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The case was very well put by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, a moment ago. I am struck by the fact that this amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and myself, seems to contain a reasonable set of proposals. I am particularly concerned by the noble Earl’s assertion that the professional bodies are saying that there has been little assessment of the impact and that we ought to know more. I have a particular concern about the authorities that are piloting the 100% retention of business rates. I very much hope that they will not be put in a position of having to refund more money than they originally gained. So this amendment—a probing amendment, in my view—seeks to ensure that the consequences of the Bill are well understood and reported to Parliament.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, goes to the heart of the first part of the Bill, namely the positions some local authorities find themselves in—having to make refunds and potentially being out of pocket. In the 2017 Autumn Budget we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce, following the decision of the Supreme Court, a return to the previous practice, and Clause 1 does just that. Business would further be allowed to ask the Valuation Office Agency to recalculate valuations so that business rate demand would be based on the previous practice, backdated to April 2010.

The Budget papers confirmed that the Government would fully compensate local government for loss of income—but then they had a change of heart and decided that if they had the extra money it was an unexpected windfall. The council would be very pleased about that, but if it had to pay anything back there would be no compensation for the authority concerned. The noble Earl’s amendment would require the Government to do exactly what they said they would do in the first place, and it has my full support.

Amendment 4 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would place in the Bill a requirement for the Government to undertake a review of the impact of the provisions in Clause 1. That seems a sensible and proportionate thing to do. The amendment would require the Government to have a review, sets out what it should cover and requires that the Government should lay it before both Houses of Parliament—but nothing beyond that. They would have to do nothing other than lay the review.

I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, responds to this probing amendment and the noble Earl’s amendment he will see the point that we are trying to highlight. We are trying to give the Government the tools to do the analysis to make sure that they have got this right.

Legislative Reform (Regulator of Social Housing) (England) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for his explanation and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for reminding us of the history of this matter. We support the order to create a stand-alone regulatory authority. It seems a logical and necessary step, given the changed nature of the Homes and Communities Agency, now Homes England, and the potential conflict of interest that could arise if a housing association was in financial difficulty. It should not be a secured creditor of organisations that it regulates, and the regulatory framework should be robust and seen to be robust by third parties and private investors. There is strong public support for the proposals and, as a consequence, these proposals should command our support, too.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The order before the House is one I support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for reminding us of the history of this and of the bonfire of the quangos—I remember the debates we had in the House about that. Clearly, the phoenix has now risen from the fire and we are back where we started. I am very happy with that and with the explanation that the noble Lord has given us. I am happy to support the order.

Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords I remind the Committee that I am a vice president of the Local Government Association. The regulations have my entire support. This is a very welcome change. I have one question for the Minister, which I have raised on previous regulations. It takes a very long time to effect change—it is three years since the initial consultation took place in May 2015—and I wonder whether things might be speeded up a bit. We have to consult carefully on the regulation to get the right outcome, nevertheless it does seem to take a very long time.

It has to be right that local authorities can regulate the minimum size of rooms that may be occupied as sleeping accommodation. It has to be right that the local housing authority can specify the maximum number of persons who may occupy a specified room for the purpose of sleeping accommodation in that licenced HMO. It has to be right that local authorities can make schemes in respect of refuse storage and disposal that a landlord would have to implement. In all those respects this regulation has to be right.

There was a time when the definition of HMOs was adequate. They were of three or more storeys and were occupied by five or more persons forming two or more households. That was for many years a standard definition that stood the test of time. The difficulty now is, as the Minister said, that the private sector has grown to the point where it represents one in five household tenures in the UK, and standards have slipped. We have HMOs which, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, are under the radar, and something has to be done about that.

I understand that there has been some debate about a reasonable minimum size for sleeping accommodation. As the Minister made clear, 6.51 square metres for one person over the age of 10 is a minimum size, not necessarily a desirable size. Indeed, it is actually very small. If you calculate that in your own mind, it is not very big at all. I understand that there are some residential landlords who would like all the accommodation in an HMO, which might include communal accommodation, to be calculated as part of the minimum amount. It seems to me that sleeping accommodation, which is the private space of an individual in an HMO, has to be of a reasonable size for someone to do things other than just sleeping. Therefore, I find 6.51 square metres small. I do not think it reasonable to say that we should include communal accommodation and reduce the amount that is required under the law for sleeping accommodation.

With reference to paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, I wonder whether the period of 18 months’ grace is too long. For a while, I felt that once this has been approved, giving landlords a year, or perhaps nine months, would be adequate. Given the fact that it may prove complicated for local authorities to identify, investigate and agree with landlords what will happen, a period of 18 months is probably justified. When he replies, can the Minister explain the basis for the 18-month period as opposed to any other?

These regulations are very welcome. They help us to solve a problem. Where standards in the private rented sector are declining, they give local authorities powers to act to protect the interests of tenants. They should therefore be commended.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, these are important regulations before the Grand Committee. I, too, declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I do not know whether any noble Lords here have ever lived in an HMO. I certainly have not. My honourable friend in the other place, Melanie Onn, and I were work colleagues in the Labour Party; she lived in an HMO as a young homeless person and she will tell you what conditions were like there. She has some knowledge about this. These regulations are important and I am very happy to support them; they certainly go in the right direction, but there is a lot more to do.

I have also been out in Newham on a number of housing raids. Of course, Newham has a licensing scheme, but the standard of accommodation some people are expected to live in is absolutely shocking. The regulations are a step in the right direction, but we must never lose sight of the poor accommodation that we have and expect some people to live in. I support improved rights and protections for renters; the regulations will go some way to improving the rights of some of the most poor and vulnerable people in our communities.

We have had discussion of the national minimum room standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the room allocated to someone in an HMO is not just a bedroom. Other than the shared bathroom and kitchen, you need a bit more space to put a bed and a wardrobe in. This must be taken into account when concluding that the proposed minimum standard for a single occupier should be 6.51 square metres or 10.22 square metres for two people. Those sizes will be further compromised if young children are there as well.

Some local authorities may seek to provide larger minimum space standards in their licensing schemes, which is good. However, we need to consider carefully that these rooms are not just bedrooms. They are your bedroom and living room. They are the room where you put all your property. Everything you have in life goes into this one room. I certainly think that we have to look carefully at size there.

The Minister mentioned fines for letting out rooms that are smaller than the minimum, which is good. However, we must make the point that we can have all the regulations we like, but it becomes an issue when we cannot enforce them. The other issue with HMOs, particularly when they are very small or even illegally let, is the danger of overcrowding and overcluttering, which creates a fire risk and other problems that people get into in insufficient spaces.

Ultimately, we need to think also about issues such as the impact on mental health. You have to remember that people are letting one room and are sharing the building with people they do not know. Often, they will lock the door to their room at night, and that is not a great way to live your life. These are some of the most vulnerable people and there are real issues here, in particular for their mental health.

That leads on to the wider problem of a housing market in crisis, which we have talked about many times in this House and elsewhere. The standard and quality of some of the accommodation that people live in is shocking and we need to do much more about that.

I have to mention the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016, which offered little respite to people in this housing crisis. We need always to be on top of this. I support the regulations because they are a move forward, and I thank the Government for that, but we need to do much more. I am not sure if the Minister has been out to look at the situation, but I can recommend that he do so with Newham Council. He would find it shocking—I was last out with the council in February. For people to be living like that in HMOs in 2018, in one of the richest countries in the world and one of the richest cities in the world, is truly unbelievable. I am very happy to support the regulations before us today.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Database of Rogue Landlords and Property Agents) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the register: namely that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am moving this Motion in relation to a regulation under the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016, a fine example of how to legislate in haste and repent at leisure, a generally dreadful piece of legislation with little or no thought given to its consequences, with a number its of provisions either dropped or quietly forgotten about and never mentioned again.

One of the more promising parts of the legislation was the rogue landlords and property agents database, but even here the Government got it wrong, as I state in my regret Motion, as they do not allow tenants or anyone else other than the Government or local authorities access to it. So it is a good idea and a good initiative but, through the action of the Government, it is failing tenants—failing to help them to make informed choices and to protect themselves. This is important, as the housing market is changing before our eyes. The number of people in the social rented sector has fallen, as has the number owning their own homes. Some 4.7 million households in England currently rent privately—about 20% of all households. This includes a large number of young and single people but also includes a number of families.

The vast majority of private landlords and property agents are good and act responsibly. They, and the bodies that represent them, are as keen as anybody else to deal with the rogues who abuse their tenants. There is support in the industry for this database to be available much more widely. David Cox, the chief executive of the Association of Residential Letting Agents, said:

“We have campaigned for the Government’s database of banned letting agents to be publicly available as with no public access to the database, how will landlords or tenants know if they are using a banned agent?”


I think David Cox is absolutely right. How will you know if you cannot have access to this secret list? Carrie Kus, director of the Residential Landlords Association, said:

“We all want to see criminal landlords rooted out of the rental market altogether. Any measure … which helps tenants to distinguish between the majority of law-abiding and decent landlords and those landlords who bring the sector into disrepute is to be welcomed”.


I agree with her, but it is a shame that this regulation will not help tenants to make that choice as they are prevented from having access to the secret list.

We all want both tenants and landlords to operate within a set of rules where a clean, safe, dry property, which meets all its obligations under the law, is offered for rent and where tenants accordingly pay the rent due to the landlord. The rogue landlords and property agents database deals with the small number of landlords and property agents who flout their obligations and the rules, and who rent out substandard accommodation, often to vulnerable tenants. This is accepted in paragraph 7.1 on page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies these regulations. The memorandum goes on to say that the Government are,

“determined to crack down on these landlords and disrupt their business model”.

I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, that disrupting their business model would be a lot easier to achieve if their customers knew they were on this list. However, this database is secret and only to be accessed by the Government and local authorities.

Who are we protecting with this inadequate regulation? These could be landlords who have been convicted of certain offences, or made the subject of banning orders for matters such as illegally evicting and harassing tenants; using violence to enter a property; failing to comply with improvement notices; failing to adhere to houses in multiple occupation regulations; failing to adhere to an overcrowding notice; providing false or misleading information; or other similar offences. I was interested to read the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, to all Members of this House on 6 April 2018. It gives some useful information, but for me the most interesting paragraph was the last but one and I will read part of it. It says:

“Currently, the legislation does not allow for information on the database to be shared more widely. However, I am strongly committed to supporting tenant choice and my department is exploring a range of options to make the information on the database publicly available. This would enable prospective tenants and others to check whether a landlord or agent has been subject to enforcement action. This may require primary legislation. In the meantime, we are encouraging local authorities to publish information drawn from their own records about landlords and property agents who have been banned, convicted of relevant criminal offences, or have received a civil penalty. We have also encouraged them to make this information available to tenants who request it”.


I suppose that is progress of a sort but it is a mess. Tenants are prevented in law from having access to this database but we encourage local authorities to publish a separate list about such landlords and property agents. It is a real dog’s breakfast and I can see local authorities being very wary of doing that unless they have a specific instruction to do so. It could have been so different. My noble friends Lord Beecham and Lady Hollis of Heigham, the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Kerslake and Lord Shipley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and many other noble Lords will recall the debates in January, February, March and April 2016. The Government were not listening and there were late night sittings. On 11 April 2016, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, moved an amendment to allow tenants access to this information. I also spoke in support but in her response, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park—who is now the Leader of the House—said:

“Indeed, allowing such access to the database would arguably breach the landlord’s human rights by making sensitive personal information about their convictions publicly available and effectively banning them from operating without an independent tribunal determining whether they should be banned”.—[Official Report, 11/4/16; col. 82.]


This line of defence was revised when this House gave a Second Reading to the Renters’ Rights Bill, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It proposed, among other things, the right for tenants to have access to the database of rogue landlords and property agents. On 10 June 2016, in response to the debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, said:

“Giving tenants or potential tenants access to the database might be fine if the purpose of the database was to blacklist landlords and drive them out of business. However, that is not the purpose of the database. Where a landlord should not be in business, the local authority should apply for a banning order”.—[Official Report, 10/6/16; col. 985.]


Taking the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne; the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on 11 April 2016 when the Bill was going through Parliament; and the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, on 10 June 2016, responding to an attempt to make this database public, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Government are in a complete mess on this issue with contradictory positions: it is as clear as mud. I can see local authorities being very wary and wanting more clarity on the issues before publishing anything.

I have a number of questions for the noble Lord. Is he aware that the Private Rented Sector Partnership Board, which comprises the Association of Residential Letting Agents, Countrywide, the National Landlords Association, the Nationwide Building Society, the Nationwide Foundation and Shelter, believes that organisations and businesses operating in the private rented sector should have access to the Government’s rogue landlord and lettings agent database? Does he accept that, from what I have highlighted from his letter, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, that the Government need to get their act together and provide clarity on the situation? Will his department be following up his letter to Members of this House with a letter to all local authority leaders and chief executives, making it clear that local authorities can publish information on rogue landlords and letting agents drawn from their own information and that the Government are encouraging them to do just that? What discussions have the Government had with tenants’ bodies and tenant advice organisations about how they could use the database to help local authorities identify rogue landlords and target their enforcement work?

In conclusion, I hope I have highlighted that the situation we find ourselves in is far from ideal and that it would be right for the House to express its regret. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the intentions of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I am grateful to the Minister for his letter of 6 April in which he updated us on the introduction of a database of rogue landlords and property agents, together with the powers being introduced to enable serious and prolific offenders to be banned from operating. I welcome these steps. They are proportionate, legitimate and in the public interest.

However, these changes have taken a while—indeed too long—to reach this stage and I remain concerned that the support from these Benches for an open register of rogue landlords has yet to bear fruit. The letter from the Minister says specifically that his department is,

“exploring a range of options to make the information on the database publicly available”.

Can he tell us what that range of options is, the nature of the consultation and when the exploration will become a decision? I also noted doubt in the Minister’s letter as to whether primary legislation was required. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned this; I am surprised that it is not already known. Could the Minister clarify why the department is not clear on this matter? It seems a straightforward issue to give a clear answer on.

The Government are to give local authorities the right to publish information drawn from their own records about banned or convicted landlords or property agents and those who have received a civil penalty. But the nature of that publication is not clear. It seems it can be made available to individual tenants—and presumably, therefore, to prospective tenants, although that is not actually stated. I will give the Minister an example of a problem that might well arise in the functioning of this scheme. A prospective tenant wishes to know from the local authority in which their tenancy will be held whether the landlord is a rogue landlord. It is possible that the landlord is not a rogue landlord in that local authority, but it is equally possible that they are a rogue landlord in a neighbouring authority for the reason that a landlord may own properties in more than one local authority. Will that status in a neighbouring local authority be made available to the prospective tenant and will the local authority be permitted to add to its own register and publish details of those rogue landlords who reside in another area? Or will a rogue landlord in one local authority automatically become a rogue landlord in every other local authority in the country?

The Government have an improving record in some areas of private tenant protection. I cite as an example proposals on client protection moneys and progress in the proposal to ban letting fees. However, it is extraordinarily slow, and I have not understood why. However, mandatory electrical safety checks need to be done, and nothing seems to be happening there. Despite the progress being made, rogue landlords remain a big issue. After a great deal of thought I have concluded that, to be effective, a register has to be transparent and open but it also needs to be correct. For that reason, all local authorities need to follow the same clear procedures. What is stopping the Government proceeding on that basis, creating an open register that is publicly available? That seems the only way to protect tenants and prospective tenants.

Many good landlords fully understand the importance of high standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, pointed out, there is huge support among residential landlords for effective policies which deliver solutions in protecting tenants to be delivered. However, although some of the improvements the Government have made are welcome, much more needs to be done to ensure that prospective tenants and tenants are properly protected.

Building Safety Update

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement delivered earlier in the other place. I refer the House to my relevant interests as a local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I appreciate the Government updating the House, but it is important that when we have these Statements on Grenfell we always recognise not only the terrible suffering that took place but the wonderful efforts of all the emergency services, both on the night itself and afterwards, and the support from the local community, faith groups and charities, which have carried on working since that night to help rebuild that community. We should pay tribute to them all every time we have these Statements—we owe them so much for the work that they have done.

The noble Lord is right: we are nine months on from that dreadful tragedy and it must never be allowed to happen again. We must make sure that we do everything we can to ensure that that is a reality. It is very worrying, therefore, to find out that a door which it was suggested would survive for 30 minutes failed in less than half that time. These doors are supposed to give people time while they wait for the authorities to come and rescue them. To find out that it failed in half the time is very worrying indeed. It exposes serious problems with the door itself and raises questions, which I know Dame Judith is looking at in her review, on the health and safety regulations that are designed to keep people safe, but which have failed here.

It is good that we no longer hear the “red tape” nonsense that we did in the past. Clearly, this is not about red tape: it is about keeping people alive and saving lives. It is important that we do not hear such comments ever again. It is troubling for many people that these doors failed. The Government need to ensure that we move at a quicker pace to get all these matters dealt with and resolved quickly. People are concerned about this and it is always in their minds.

The Metropolitan Police investigation is a separate matter. As the Minister said, they need time and space to investigate and deal with the matters properly and to bring them to a conclusion.

I have a number of questions for the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer today. If he cannot I know that he will write to me and other Members of the House and cover both the points he made and wider points. Can he explain why, nine months on from the fire, we still do not know how many private tower blocks are covered in cladding similar to that used in Grenfell Tower? I do not know whether the House is aware of the figure, but I am not. I believe up to 41 local authorities have contacted the department in regard to fire safety works. How many have funding from the department for this work? I think it may be none or very few.

I am conscious that soon after the fire the Prime Minister fixed a deadline of three weeks for everyone who was affected to be found a home nearby. We are now nine months on and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House how many families have been found a permanent place. The last time we debated this he told us that it was 60 out of the 208 households but it would help if he can give updated figures on how many have been found a permanent place and the numbers in temporary accommodation. Again, we need to get these matters resolved as soon as possible.

I am pleased that the noble Lord said that we will be updated as testing goes on—it is important that, as other issues come to light, we update people—but, in relation to these doors and other matters, what is the process for alerting local authorities and the manufacturers? I know the name of the door, but how many of them are there elsewhere? People need to know this and that they have failed. I know the Minister said that there is a low risk—but there is still a risk—and that most fires are contained within the place where they start. However, the fire was not contained where it started in Grenfell Tower and people are worried. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government do to alert manufacturers and other private companies in order to protect people in the future? I will leave it there and I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am vice-president of the Local Government Association. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the tribute he paid to all those affected by the Grenfell tragedy.

I refer the Minister to paragraph 10 of the Statement in which it is said that there is no change to the fire safety advice that the public should follow. Does that mean that the stay-put policy for tenants in high-rise blocks is seen to be the right policy? I suspect that many people who live in high-rise blocks doubt that that should be the case.

Secondly, should the Government insist that fire regulation assessments for every high-rise building are published and made available in an accessible form for the public to read? At present, fire regulation assessments may not necessarily be public documents. If the Government are now going to say that a stay-put policy is appropriate, it follows that fire regulation assessments should be publicly available for the tenants and residents of such blocks.

I was struck by paragraph 14 of the Statement, which states that there is no evidence that this is a systemic issue. In one sense all the evidence suggests that that may be true. It probably is true that the data between 2009 and 2017 shows that fire does not generally spread beyond the room of origin. That may be generally true but, of course, sometimes it is not true and in the case of Grenfell it was not true. There is a huge amount of evidence being collected by all those working to prevent Grenfell happening again and it is pretty clear to me from what I have read in documents published by the Minister’s own department, the latest update being about a fortnight ago, that we need to move much more quickly than the Government seem to be working: there is an issue of public confidence in fire safety regulations and I fear that the Government are too slow in their resolution of some of these problems.

The public want to know whether the Government will enforce compulsory, regular electrical safety checks in high-rise blocks as a matter of policy. My final point is that there is a huge issue arising now about who is going to pay the bill for all the remedial works that are required. There is a huge amount of publicity around private leaseholders, some of whom are likely to have a fee to pay for the fire wardens who are currently in their blocks. More generally, because cladding has been put on to a large number of blocks and is having to be taken off, there is an issue as to who is paying the bill for the private leaseholders. I am not sure that it is sufficient for the Government to say simply that the solution is for private leaseholders to sue the council, the local housing authority or some other party; I fear that it is not.

Finally, the Government have consistently said that they will fund essential and necessary works to high-rise blocks. Will the Minister confirm that that remains their policy?

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. They have done a great deal to secure what seems to be an agreed and agreeable outcome. The process in this Bill so far has been a good example of the House working at its best. I also want to pay tribute to Women’s Aid, in part because of the quality of its briefings and in particular for reminding us of the funding issues which still remain. I hope very much that the Minister will bear in mind the points that have been made by Women’s Aid.

I want to add only one or two points. In Committee I said that training is very important for this to work, and I was glad to hear the Minister refer to it in his opening remarks. To be effective, staff really will have to understand in great detail the processes that they should be following. I cite in particular the example of where a victim moves between local authorities with possibly a significant distance between the two. We need effective systems and networks in place for that to function properly. I have two suggestions to make as to how it might be done.

The first is one that I think I mentioned in our last debate. The training should be sub-regional; in other words, it is very important that the people in different local authorities who deal with these matters should know each other so that they know who to contact if there is an issue, and they should be trained together. Secondly, because the training is sub-regional, it would help if there were named contacts in every local authority who would be seen as the point of expertise not only within the authority concerned but also more generally. They are the people who should be contacted and they would maintain the files, particularly on difficult cases such as those requiring confirmatory evidence and so on.

With those two suggestions, I should like to thank the Minister very much indeed for getting us to this point. It is a positive outcome to our discussions over recent weeks.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 5, proposed by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, is one that I fully support. She must be congratulated on pursuing this issue. As we have heard, the amendment puts into the Bill provisions to ensure that the protections set out in it apply to a victim of domestic violence who is living in a secure joint tenancy and stays in their home when the perpetrator leaves or is removed, as well as to victims who leave their homes.

This anomaly was first raised by my noble friend during the Second Reading debate on the Bill and she deserves much credit for persuading the Government that there was a real issue here and getting them to accept the amendment, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has done. He has shown himself to be prepared to listen carefully and look at the very real issues raised by my noble friend. I join others in paying tribute to the important work being done by Women’s Aid and I think that we all recognise the great job it does. Representatives of Women’s Aid have also engaged very positively with me during the passage of the Bill and I thank them for that.

I will not detain the House any further other than to say that I am very pleased that this amendment is going to be agreed shortly.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I reiterate our strong support for the Bill from these Benches, in the expectation that the Government will be willing either to accept these amendments or to bring forward their own on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, referred to these amendments representing a solution to a lacuna in the Bill. I think that she is entirely right and I support all the points that she has made. Put simply, this has raised the very important issue of what a secure tenancy is. Now we will be in a position—assuming the Government do come back on Report with their own amendment—to ensure the right of victims to stay in their existing home, in the case of a joint tenancy, in addition to being able to move home, which is provided for in the Bill. So I declare our support for both Amendments 1 and 3.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution in Committee, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests, namely as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. My noble friend Lady Lister moved Amendment 1 in great detail. I fully support that amendment and the intention behind it—as I do Amendment 3.

This issue was, as we heard, raised by my noble friend at Second Reading and deals with the situation where a victim of domestic violence has a joint tenancy with the perpetrator but wants to remain in the property and wants some security and to avoid upheaval. They need to be granted a new secure sole tenancy, rather than the joint tenancy that they have at that time. My noble friend highlighted the risk of the perpetrator remaining on the tenancy and the problem of them being able to effectively cancel that tenancy. I hope that the Minister agrees that this is an issue and will say that he will come back with an amendment on Report. I certainly fully support these amendments and the intention behind them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Burt’s amendment. She has made a very strong case and it is an extremely important issue on which guidance, at the very least, will be needed. I think there is a preferable option, which is to put it on the face of the Bill. Whichever approach the Government adopt, I understand there have been suggestions that the Government accept the aim of this policy. I very much hope that they will, but can the Minister confirm that the Government understand the importance, for a limited number of individuals—that is what it will turn out to be—of the Government taking action on this point? It is very important for them.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, moved Amendment 5, on which she makes a very powerful case. The Government need to address this issue. As noble Lords have heard, it would be totally unfair for a victim to be penalised by the bedroom tax due to either the perpetrator having left the property they live in now or the victim having moved somewhere else and finding themselves with one bedroom over the threshold for the tax. That needs to be looked at. It would be wrong if people ended up with additional costs because they are the victim of a crime. As the noble Baroness said, this issue affects very few people, and the Government should address it. I hope the noble Lord will look at it or come back to it on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this amendment in my name, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would place a requirement on local authorities to report annually to the Secretary of State the number of old-style secure tenancies granted under the Bill. This would be useful information for the Government to collect. It would not be a great burden for local authorities, which already have to provide the department with a wide variety of information on a regular basis. It would be useful if we got to see how many tenancies were being granted, which would provide a better picture of this dreadful crime and the action being taken by local authorities in keeping people safe. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, this is an important amendment. It scratches the surface of a number of issues that might actually be reported annually. I hope the Government will look carefully at what information they are going to get. I would like to see how many tenants of housing associations who transfer to a local authority—either the local authority where they have been living or another one—are rehoused with a secure tenancy. I am sure the Minister and his officials will come up with a long list of what local authorities should report on, but it is important to get this right because otherwise we may not know whether the training is being properly undertaken.

Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place earlier today.

On reading the Statement or listening to the noble Lord delivering it, you could be forgiven for thinking there was not a problem, but of course, the opposite is true: the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that between 2010 and 2020 local authorities will have had their direct funding cut by 79%. Anyone involved in local government will be fully aware of the serious pressure on budgets, resources, staff morale and the communities local authorities seek to serve. While local government will welcome some of the piecemeal measures being offered here, what has been announced today is not enough and is extremely disappointing. Missing also is any evidence of a coherent plan, and the lack of vision is troubling. Announcing a few million pounds here and there for specific initiatives while overall depleting local government funds is a recipe for disaster.

Local government delivers a vast range of the core services that people rely on day in, day out, and the Government need a new approach. I pay tribute to the staff employed by local authorities up and down the country for the job they do in difficult circumstances. They deserve a decent pay rise; perhaps the noble Lord can refer to that when he responds.

The noble Lord said that the Government are publishing a formal consultation on a review of relative needs and resources. Can he explain what he means by relative needs, and what is the direction of travel he is embarking upon? I disagree with him that the budget allocations have served councils and communities well in recent years.

The Government have announced that they are moving ahead with another phase of their business rates retention programme. Can the noble Lord tell the House where they are with the fair funding review and whether that is in effect being incorporated into the consultation he referred to in his Statement? I see that there are to be five new business rate retention pilots, and it was no surprise to see that Surrey made it on to the list. I am sure that Councillor Hodge and his colleagues on Surrey County Council will be pleased.

Rural areas have specific problems, so it is pleasing that the rural areas delivery grant will not be reduced next year. I am also pleased that none of the changes that were rumoured to be happening to the new homes bonus have come about; that will be a relief to many.

The noble Lord referred to the 20% increase in planning fees. Certainly, everything helps, but it is disappointing that the department to date has not allowed even one council to trial full cost recovery of planning fees. I do not see the objection to having one council trial this. The fact that council tax payers are subsidising the planning process is a matter of regret; we should seek to eliminate that unfairness and thereby release funds to be spent on local priorities.

One of the most serious issues facing local government is the crisis in adult social care, and the measures in the Statement make no progress towards finding the solution to the problem of providing quality care services for our ageing population. This will be a disappointment to local authorities, as will the failure to deal with the crisis in children’s services: we have seen a reduction in early years interventions and a record number of 72,000 children taken into care. Last year 170,000 children were subject to child protection plans, which is double the number seven years ago. Reductions in the amount of money available for important early years intervention just leads to unbearable pressure and risk, which is both shocking and completely avoidable.

Analysis by the Local Government Association revealed that in 2015-16, 75% of councils exceeded their children’s social care budgets by, in total, £605 million. Can the noble Lord tell the House how he justifies measures which further expand the crises in children’s services and adult social care and do not give local government the stability it needs? Why does he think it acceptable to place a further burden on council tax payers in the next financial year, instead of providing the additional funds that would equate to the rise that can be applied to the council tax for adult social care without having to hold a local referendum?

As Christmas approaches, the homelessness situation is shocking. The Government are not providing the necessary funds to help local authorities deal with it. Imposing legislative requirements without adequate funding will not address the problem. The Government will not face up to the crisis, and the measures here provide little comfort to those in desperate need and those who seek to provide these valuable services.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The key test of this Statement is whether the provisional finance settlement will alleviate the general funding pressures facing local councils. I think that the answer to that question is: hardly at all. As the letter from the Communities Secretary accompanying the Statement explains, the resources available for local government will rise from £44.3 billion in the current year, 2017-18, to £45.6 billion in two years’ time, 2019-20. This represents an increase well under the current rate of inflation and does not reflect rising demand to the extent that it should. In recent years, pressures have grown significantly because of year-on-year underfunding. In the end, the question is how much is local government actually receiving to spend overall, and not simply how much is it going to have over the next two years? Nevertheless, I welcome the extra support allocated for rural services and the thinking on the new homes bonus and negative RSG. However, I hope the Minister will be able to say a further word about government thinking on business rates and what their ultimate objective is.

As I understand the Statement, there is to be an extension to the number of 100% business rate retention pilots. At the same time, all local authorities will be able to keep more of their business rate income, equivalent to 75% overall in 2019-20. Alongside this, there will be a new system of fair funding—or at least I assume that that is the objective. That will be introduced from 2020-21. For the new system to succeed it will require redistribution to reflect needs and resources. Will the Minister say a further word about what the Government are trying to do? Are they trying adequately to reflect needs and resources, or are they aiming at 100% business rate retention? If the latter, where will the support needed for poorer authorities come from?

We have heard about the pressures on children’s and adult social care. There is an issue of principle here. This time last year, I said that council tax should not be used to make up deficits in resourcing, particularly as demand rises in children’s services and adult social care. I do not understand why it should take 15 months from the announcement in March this year of some extra central funding for adult social care to the production of a Green Paper in the summer of next year to discuss the problems of adequate funding for adult social care. I think that the problem is much more urgent than that.

To take another example of things happening too slowly, the 20% increase which is to be permitted for planning fees was debated in your Lordships’ House many months ago. There is a demand now for additional planning expenditure, so I wish government could work a bit more quickly in dealing with some of the real problems on the ground.

There is a question about council tax referendum principles and the right of councils to increase council tax by the rate of inflation without a referendum. I would prefer that there were no referendum system at all and that local authorities were freed up to make the decisions they think are right in their area. In the end, they will face the verdict of voters through the ballot box. What is happening is that the Government are increasing council tax further. As I understand it, an extra 1% is to be permitted without a referendum so that, in practice, the rate of inflation is met at least in the next year. This is putting the cost of supporting national services on to the council tax payer. I am not convinced—and I said the same thing last year—that this is the right way to go. Poorer authorities, in particular, have a lower council tax base, so if the aim is to redistribute, simply charging extra through council tax to pay for services in the more deprived authorities seems not to be the right way to go.

Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to produce a model which is fair? The words “fair funding” were used a great deal this time last year. I very much hope that those words will continue to be used. For funding to be fair, council tax payers must also have fair demands on their wallets. Will the Minister bear that in mind? I hope that, for the rest of this Parliament, the Government will not simply load council tax so that local government receives more complaints because their council has been underfunded by central government for a considerable time.

Local Housing Need

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 14th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a local councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in the other place.

I am not in the habit of jumping up and banging my fist on the Dispatch Box, but I am deeply disappointed at the actions of the Government. We have had seven years of failure, the shambles of the Housing and Planning Act—which must be in contention for one of the worst pieces of legislation ever put on the statute book by a Government; it is an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation—and the housing White Paper. Again, I remember all the hype we had—“It’s coming tomorrow!”—and then, of course, it delivered very little.

We have a housing crisis; I think everybody knows that, and they are absolutely right. Everyone knows somebody who cannot get the home they need or aspire to. Home ownership has now hit a 30-year low, affordable housebuilding has dropped to a 24-year low, and last year just 1,000 new homes for social rent were started—directly as a result of policy decisions taken by the Conservative Party since 2010. That is seven years of failure on all fronts. The country expects much more from the Government. Even the Prime Minister knows that a big reason why she lost her majority at the general election was because of their policies on housing.

What has been announced today will be useful to help underpin the National Planning Policy Framework, albeit five years after it was adopted by the Government. New planning permissions are only a small part of the answer to the housing crisis; 300,000 planning permissions were granted last year, yet affordable housebuilding is at a 24-year low. I often tell the Minister and the House about what goes on in Lewisham. Many times we have granted planning permissions but nothing is built there, so this is not on its own the answer to the problem.

A standard method to assess housing need is sensible. There was one, as well as the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, but both were abolished in 2010. Can the Minister tell the House when these new procedures will apply from? Will it be from 2018? The lack of a standard method does cause delay in producing local plans—part of the reason it now takes longer to approve them than it did in 2010. How much quicker does the Minister estimate these changes will make the plan-making process?

The new national formula fixes housing numbers for local areas. The Minister tells us that this is not a “hard and fast target”, yet local plans must meet the new numbers, and in more than half the country the numbers will go up by an average of a third. Is this tough new action from the Government or just warm words? Will the Minister be very clear about what he means by all this? What action will follow when an authority fails to meet these new numbers? How many authorities does he estimate will meet the new housing delivery test set by his department?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It is good that councils will be undertaking a more accurate assessment of housing needs in their area and working across boundaries with neighbouring authorities—perhaps better than occurs in some places. The further support through the capacity fund is welcome, although I suspect that it may prove not to be enough, but no doubt the Government will keep that under review.

The Statement goes so far but when it says that,

“we need a proper understanding of exactly how many homes are needed and where”,

there is something missing. We need to know also what tenure they ought to be. Are they for sale, and at what kind of price range? Are they for rent? Are they to be affordable or are they to be homes for social rent? A major failing in the Statement is that it does not address the issue of finance. I will come back to that in a moment.

I am interested, if the Minister happens to know, in how much the expensive consultants using their own methodologies have actually wasted. Presumably there is a figure in the department which would indicate to us how much money has been spent by consultants who are not using common methodologies. It should be a matter of concern if public money is being spent for purposes that may not be giving us a clear result. But the Statement ends by saying:

“The result is an opaque mishmash of different figures that are consistent only in their complexity”.


We need to know more about that, because the figures that are being used for planning purposes need to be reliable.

Perhaps the Minister will explain why the four times average earning planning figure is being used rather than some other number. Presumably it has been carefully worked out but another number could be more appropriate. The Government may find that they need to keep under constant review whether the three stages of assessment are actually working. They may do, but the consultation will reveal whether or not they actually do.

Is it necessary for planning authorities to have 12 months,

“to set out exactly how they are working with counterparts across their housing market area”?

In some cases they already are; in other cases where they are not, they should be doing it a great deal more quickly than in 12 months. If there was to be a faster figure, I would want to support that.

The Government have come out with the figure of 266,000 homes per year as the starting point for local plans across England. I just draw the Minister’s attention to the report by the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, which said that it should be 300,000 a year—after a great deal of work. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether 300,000 is the Government’s target. Presumably, to hit 1.5 million over five years, as the Statement also indicates will occur by 2022, it is closer to 300,000 a year. Unless the financial arrangements are sorted out to enable local authorities and others to build, particularly for social rent, a problem is going to arise because I do not think you can build 1.5 million houses to sell. Whether it is for a form of shared ownership or whatever, in the end we simply need more social homes for rent.

The Statement makes it clear that:

“These measures alone will not fix our broken housing market”.


That is absolutely true. But the Statement does not go on to tell us why that is. But the reason is because the financial arrangements are not in place to do it. Earlier today in Questions, I cited the National Audit Office report on homelessness, which cost local authorities £1.1 billion in 2015-16. That would have provided 30,000 new affordable homes—not necessarily homes for social rent. It is clear to me that the broken housing market will not be fixed only through changes to the planning system. The root of the problem is that the cost of renting is too high and not enough social housing is being built. The Government are at serious risk of not delivering the 1 million new homes by 2020 and the further 500,000 by 2022.

Finally, the Minister said a great deal about the regional spatial strategy. There were problems with the regional spatial strategy, but it was not quite as bad as the Statement made out. This new approach may be better, but it is still slightly top-down. I draw the Minister’s attention to a report published recently by Homes for the North, which looks at a regional approach to the provision of housing and identifying housing need. What is particularly interesting in its statement that 500,000 homes are needed over a 10-year period across the north of England is that the work is being done in conjunction with Transport for the North; in other words, there is an integrated planning system, not officially in place but unofficially in place, which I think is going to help identify need. If the Minister has not read the report, Future Housing Requirements for the North, I hope he will endeavour to do so.

Grenfell Tower Update

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. As the Minister said, this tragedy should never have happened. I am pleased that progress has been made on a number of fronts—but considerably more needs to be done. I am sure that Members of this House will agree with me that the devastation of this disaster was made all the worse in the immediate aftermath by the poor response of Kensington and Chelsea council, which can only be described as shameful. I am pleased that the leader of the council, Councillor Nicholas Paget-Brown, has resigned, along with his deputy, Councillor Rock Feilding-Mellen. I just wish they had accepted responsibility and resigned sooner. I note that the Secretary of State has welcomed the resignation of the leader of the council—but why did he not call for it, as others did?

Many have called for the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners to take over the running of this authority, as it is not fit for purpose. But so far he has decided not to do this and instead has opted to “keep an eye” on the council. Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State has decided to do this? What exactly does keeping an eye on the council mean and entail? It certainly does not seem to me to be the sort of response one would expect to such a complete and abject failure by the council towards the local community it was elected to serve and protect.

I am pleased that housing offers are being made, but is the Minister satisfied that everyone has been contacted, and that they have been assured that no other issues—such as how they were renting a property at Grenfell Tower—will be of any concern to the authorities? We must be sure that no vulnerable, traumatised families are hiding, frightened and not getting the help they are entitled to, or not being able to provide the police and other authorities with valuable information, because they are too scared to come forward.

The faith communities and the local voluntary sector have a big role to play here. What support are the Government giving to them to do this important work? Why has only half the discretionary fund of £5 million been distributed to date? The Minister said that 112 households had received the £5,500 immediate assistance. So how many have not? If it is even just one family after three weeks, that is a disgrace. How have these families been able to live? What about the report that at least one tenant has been charged rent? What arrangements have been made for the schooling and care of local children who attend Avondale Park primary school and have been traumatised by these horrific events?

I move on to the public inquiry, which was reaffirmed in the Queen’s Speech. The background note to the Speech, published on 21 June, provided further detail and said:

“Residents, the families of the deceased, the Mayor of London and HM Opposition will be consulted on the terms of reference under which the inquiry will proceed and the Government will agree the terms of reference, which will be published in consultation with the Chair of the Inquiry”.


On 29 June, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry said:

“I’ve been asked to undertake this inquiry on the basis that it would be pretty well limited to the problems surrounding the start of the fire and its rapid development, in order to make recommendations as to how this sort of thing can be prevented in the future”.


The Prime Minister has also said:

“No stone will be left unturned by this inquiry”.


It is important that we are very clear about this inquiry, its terms of reference when agreed, that no stone is left unturned, as the Prime Minister promised, and that Sir Martin has the power to go where the evidence leads him. Will the Minister please confirm that that is the case and that no conflict—perceived or otherwise—should be drawn from the statements I have previously outlined?

It is right that sensible precautions are taken to avoid another tragedy. It is shocking that all the samples so far tested have failed. The Statement does not make clear what the Government are doing to assist local authorities and other organisations when their buildings fail the fire safety test. The Government need to go much further than just saying, “Landlords must provide alternative accommodation”. We want to have a clear explanation from the Government of what they are doing to assist landlords in coping with this challenge—and that is not addressed in this Statement.

Finally, the Minister said that he would update the House on a regular basis—but we are going into the Summer Recess in three weeks and are not back until September. What plans do the Government have to ensure that, while we are in Recess, Parliament, the media, survivors and their families and the public are properly informed about what is happening; what progress is being made; and when things are proving more challenging than they thought they would be? The Minister may not be able to address my last point when he replies, but I trust he will agree to take it back to the department and will return to the Dispatch Box to address it before the Recess.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree with the Minister that it was the right decision for the Government to make it clear that there would be no prosecution of those who may have illegally sublet flats. The Government were also right to say that the resignation of the leader of Kensington and Chelsea council was the right thing for him to do.

It is now three weeks since the catastrophe that should never have happened hit Grenfell Tower. It is also eight years ago today since six people died in the fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, following which a coroner’s report published a number of recommendations that were sent to the then Secretary of State. That occurred in 2011—six years ago. As a consequence of that fire, guidance to social housing providers was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Does the department know which local authorities undertook works to meet the recommendations in that guidance? Is there a list of what each local authority—or local housing provider, for not all are local authorities—actually did?

The Minister referred to 181 out of 181 failures in cladding tests. It is clear that those tests are vital, but I understand that it is not simply a question of the cladding: it is also the insulation and the void behind the cladding that can cause a fire to spread so very quickly. I was struck by a briefing produced by the Association of British Insurers, which I saw today, about approved document B. This document defines fire regulations in England and the Association of British Insurers urged a comprehensive review of it in response to the Lakanal House fire.

It repeated that recommendation when it responded to the housing White Paper. Its briefing stated:

“The ABI recommends that the Government urgently revise Approved Document B to reflect the fire safety risks associated with modern building materials, techniques and construction methods, deviating away from a focus on more traditional masonry builds”.


I say to the Minister that that is a very important issue. I do not think that action as a consequence of that can simply await the result of a public inquiry. It is extremely urgent. Local authorities and local housing providers should be told what action they should take within a matter of weeks. We should note that the ABI has urged this review since 2009.

There has also been a problem with emergency planning that I want to ask the Minister about, because there was clearly a major failure in Kensington and Chelsea with emergency plans. It took around 48 hours for there to be an identifiable process of who was responsible for what. Even then, there was very serious doubt. Can the Minister commit to the department ensuring that all emergency plans of all local areas are checked out, updated and made robust so that emergency responses can always take place quickly, with the responsibilities of all the different agencies clearly understood and acted upon?

Grenfell Tower was a most appalling tragedy. It increasingly seems as though some of the lessons that could have been learned from previous fire incidents had not been fully taken on board—which means that the speed of response by the Government this time matters very greatly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I could draw the attention of the House to my interests. I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.